Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "After my collision the world went blank but I didn't see angels and harps because the highway and the crash situation were imaginary, created inside Ford's Virttex (virtual text track experiment cockpit simulator). Functioning much like a simulator for pilots, this domed virtual world on pitching and sliding stilts has been used to test car cockpits and instruments since 2001. It played a role in the development of recent center stacks such as MyFord Touch. In recent years, Ford used Virttex driver distraction research to learn more about what causes driver inattention and what countermeasures Ford can embed into cars to keep people like me from becoming another Darwinian statistic. It also gives Ford a leg up on the competition — Ford says it's the only automaker in the U.S. with a virtual reality simulator of this magnitude."

While speeding is the leading cause for most traffic accidents, one can't deny that unskilled drivers also contributed to a significant portion of traffic mayhem

Current system of testing / passing drivers are often way too insufficient - as long as the driver can manage to drive the test car without any mishaps they are rewarded a driver license - resulted in many drivers who are totally unprepared and unskilled to handle heavy and often very tricky traffic situations (like water planing, ice-skitting, and such)

I believe it comes time to upgrade the DMV with simulator, and those who want to obtain a driver license must first demonstrate their skills in the simulator, with all sort of situational scenario thrown in

This can lessen a significant portion of traffic mishaps and cut down the number of traffic injuries and deaths

The slower I'm going, the less attention I'm paying. If it was legal to go 90, I'd be paying pretty damn close attention to the road! It actually makes it seem suicidally dangerous to eat breakfast or do your hair so people wouldn't even try it, lol.
By the way, I believe we have a video clip [youtube.com] of this simulator in action...

"The slower I'm going, the less attention I'm paying. If it was legal to go 90, I'd be paying pretty damn close attention to the road!"I'd be very interested to see you stop at a stop sign. Must be a hilarious show.

Also, I think you should be allowed to go 200 anywhere. You'll be the safest driver on the road!

"speeding is the cause of near zero traffic accidents. It merely magnifies other causes (and effects)."Sure. And shooting yourself in the mouth with a gun isn't the cause of death. It merely magnified the effect of the bullet.

The problem with the term 'speeding' is that it has two meanings. The first is the simple "exceed the posted speed limit". The second is "too fast for the conditions".

The reality is that an experienced driver will drive to the conditions which in some (many?) cases may include "exceeding the speed limit", and in other cases will be driving far below the posted limit. The same driver is, however, very unlikely to drive "too fast for the conditions".

An inexperienced (or careless) driver on the other hand is likely to do the opposite. In your example, the driver is driving dangerously (irrespective of speed). "Shooting through" red lights is idiocy on the grandest scale (again irrespective of speed), and basically means they weren't paying any attention to the road at all.

True. However, of those in your example, the cause would be "drunk", which probably led to all the others.

If you took away "drunk", then the cause would be "running red light". If you were tailgating someone, then that is an unrelated stupidity that wouldn't otherwise cause the accident in question (which would probably be a T-boning into or by cross traffic).

The only thing speed would have done would have been to increase the kinetic energy of the impact, assuming you were the one doing the T-boning. If it

What's "danger"? If you define "danger" as the chance of a crash, then 4 times the energy does not result in 4 times the danger. If you define "danger" as damage when you hit a solid wall, then yes, double the speed is four times as dangerous. But I don't know anyone who defines "danger" as "damage assuming a negative event". Even risk, a defined term (danger is an emotional term with definitions that are different for most people), doesn't have that direct link. Risk is the probability of harm multipl

Sorry, but speeding rarely is the CAUSE of any accident. Speed differentials can be. And accident damage will increase with speed. But going fast does not, in itself, cause accidents.

And by definition "speeding" is *ANY* speed over the speed limit. Since 98% of people drive over the speed limit (they do here at least), how is it that 98% of cars are not in accidents?

The leading causes of accidents are probably:

* Failure to stop in time because of following too closely* Not looking/knowing what is in a lane before changing lanes* Distracted driving of any sort (passengers, phones, controls, etc)* Falling asleep* Intoxicated driving* Reckless driving (weaving, lane splitting, running lights, chicken, etc)

I wonder why people need to go 10-15 or more over the speed limit? Doesn't have to be an interstate, could be a rural highway (one lane) or any road. Most of the time they just get to a red light or stop sign faster.
I don't go more than 5 over, because there is no good reason to. I'm NOT sorry if that isn't good enough for the people behind me, either pass or mail me a check I can use for gas or legal fees.

I have oversized tires on my Land Rover, and now when it says 100km/h on my speedo, I am actually doing 100km/h on the GPS. If I do 139 the 140km/h radar does not yet flash and I don't get a speeding ticket. Prior to getting the larger tires, I thought everyone was doing 160km/h... but they weren't... they were all doing 138km/h - because they didn't want a ticket either.

If I had been going 120km/h on my speedometer before, I would have been cre

Yes, it is. Tire sizes are measured like 225/40/17... second number indicates the sidewall height as a percentage of the treadwidth (first number, in MM). Third number is the size, in inches, of the rim.

I went from 205/80-16 to 265/70-16The circumference of the original tire was 2307.19mm vs 2442.27mmThat is, 433.43 revolutions per KM to 409.45 revolutions per KM

That means there is a 6% difference in my speedometer between the two tires (assuming the old tires were not worn, which they were)

If it's a rural highway, it shouldn't be known for it's numerous red lights or even stop signs.

In town I tend to attempt to time the lights - if that means going 5mph over to hit the green I'll do it. I'll also do 5mph UNDER to get the green, if that's the way it's timed - I've seen it, and laughed at the cars that pass me doing 5-10mph over towards the red light, and are forced to stop and are just starting up again as I cruise through the light just as it turns green.

If I am on a dark empty two lane road, I often drive center so that way my lights shine further into the ditch to watch for moose on the opposite side. Obviously not when comming to hills or blind corners.

I also sometimes drive towards/over center in areas with street parking and high pedestrain activity - again, when visibility and traffic permits.

I have on more then one ocasion seen toddlers chasing balls come from between parked cars and animals bolt up from the ditch.

#2 is speeding - It says your reactions slow, my correction would be that you need to react faster to avoid an accident at higher speed. The difference between 60 and 65 can be over 100ft in stopping distance, or the difference between just missing the bumper of the car in front of you and plowing through it.

The explanation of why speed is an accident cause is childish as if speed alone is the culprit. The cause isn't speed, it's drivers exceeding their skill envelope. If you put multiple people of various driving skill levels into the same potentially dangerous situation you will get different outcomes base upon their experience, reaction times, distractions and situational awareness.

Which is why I don't really want to bother testing all drivers so much as I'd love to see self-driving cars. A car that can determine it needs to slam on the brakes in 1/100th of a second as opposed to the 1.5 that many humans take means a computer controlled car can stop in a shorter distance at 100mph than a human can at 65.

It's not my study, just listing them out. Under your thinking, one could then call speeding reckless driving, which indeed happens when you're speeding excessively.

Still, given how common it is I wouldn't consider including it as a category out of line. Personally, I'd try to only attribute accidents that could have obviously been avoided if they'd been going the speed limit - IE they attempted to brake, but due to their speed were unable to stop in time, while they would have been able to if they had bee

"The cause isn't speed, it's drivers exceeding their skill envelope."Do you mean that, let's say, NASCAR drivers should be allowed to drive at 200mph on normal roads? They're within their skill envelope after all.

If you are a designated driver, and your friend is passed out in the back seat, drunk and you stop at a red light and the car behind you falls asleep (sober) and crashes into you, you do know how that gets recorded in statistics, right? It's "alcohol related" because one of the people involved was drunk (and asleep, even if not in control of either car). When *any* alcohol in either car (including the blood stream of the dead body in the trunk) is present, the crash is "alcohol related'. With a definitio

Can you give a citation to that? What statistics is it you're referring to and where can I find the definition you describe? If you're correct that's some very misleading statistics but it's a pretty strong claim so I'd like to see some evidence before buying it.

He can't because he's wrong. Same link Document 811606 "Drivers are considered to be alcohol-impaired when their blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) is.08 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatal
crash involving a driver with a BAC of.08 or higher is considered to be an alcohol-
impaired-driving crash, and fatalities occurring in those crashes are considered to
be alcohol-impaired-driving fatalities. The term “driver” refers to the operator of
any motor vehicle, including a motorcy

You are the one that's wrong. If BAC is 0.01 or greater, then it is alcohol-involved. That's from another NHTSA document. So which NHTSA document is right? Depends on who's quoting it and why. Also note that the document you refer to also includes passengers who are drunk in the statistics. Those are included in alcohol-involved incidents. I never said "alcohol-impaired" so correcting me by quoting unrelated stats doesn't prove me wrong. It just proves

The broader alcohol involvement statistic is so meaningless as to draw the ire of the above slashdot commenters. No doubt that is why it is not used. Your original response implied that was the statistic being used in the document, and was interpreted as such by the responders below you. If you were not talking about the data I presented, why bring up an unrelated and useless statistic? Either you did not recognize the difference to begin with and are now backpedaling on semantic grounds, or you were tr

"NHTSA Defines A Fatal Crash As Alcohol-related Or Alcohol-involved If Either A Driver Or A Nonmotorist (usually A Pedestrian) Had A Measurable Or Estimated Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Of 0.01 Grams Per Deciliter (g/dl) Or Above. NHTSA Defines A Nonfatal Crash As Alcohol-related Or Alcohol-involved If Police Indicate On The Police Accident Report That There Is Evidence Of Alcohol Present. The Code Does Not Necessarily Mean That A Driver Or Nonoccupant Was Tested For Alcohol."

Speeding is the cause of *all* crashes. Just like having a dead hooker who died of a heroin OD in your trunk when your car breaks down on the train tracks makes the train/car crash "alcohol-related", all crashes are, by definition, speed related. And driving too slow for conditions is used to justify laws against going faster.

The problem is that the politicians have more interest in the laws than the engineers, and appearing to do something by doing the opposite of what you say you are doing is better th

Yeah, the "of this magnitude" would be the only difference. My uncle used to work at the Chrysler Proving Grounds, doing fun things like crashing cars into brick walls and dropping a safe on them from a crane. They were running a simulator by at least the early 1970s, and it did lead to changes in Chrysler vehicle designs (in particular moving the stupid high-beam switch off the floor).

Real-life driving tests are very limited in what they can test. Does the driver continue to drive the speed limit on a slippery road or when visibility is poor? Does the driver stop for pedestrians in unmarked crosswalks? If the car starts hydroplaning, does the driver let off the gas or slam on the brakes?

We have the technology to test all of these situations and more. Why are we still in the 1950s in driver testing?

How much does each one of those things cost? Multiply by the number of DMVs that administer driving tests. Might even need 2 or 3 per DMV.

I'm sure there are other reason as well. Moral guardians not being satisfied with "a video game" demonstrating the proper skills of real-world driving (even though you and I know better) or concerned parents blaming their Little Snowflake's failures on the machine. But money is almost certainly the main limiting factor.

I once figured out how much a self driving car would be worth.1. Safety - The system is better than 90% of drivers. It may not get into the same accidents as a human driver, it doesn't get into as many, but it still has them.Value: ~$700-2100/year. High end is for bad/drunk drivers, otherwise it assumes a 90% average savings on insurance.2. Average human values their time at around $10/hour. 15k miles/year@40mph = 375 hoursValue: $3,7503. Due to driving sedately/optimally, it saves 10% gas mileage. (

I was talking with a co-worker in Germany about motorcycles. I probably put $300 into my training - $250 for the beginner's motorcycle class (which got me my license) and $50 in costs to BMV in Ohio for license and temps. In Germany, they have approximately a 1400 pound expenditure before they're certified to ride on the motorways. This includes hours of testing and skills practice.

My thoughts regarding "oh noes, the cost!!!" - it would just be passed on to the customer. Would it outrage a lot of peopl

Quick solution: use these simulators for a separate certification that gives you a substantial break on insurance. Private companies can buy the simulators, offer courses and administer the certification. Proper inclusion in the DMV can come later, especially as the price on the simulators comes down.

I like it. It's certainly the most realistic solution. Possibly even have the sims purchased by the insurance companies themselves. Some bean-counter could math it out and make it work, might even weigh on insurance decisions and/or be useful ammo between insurance companies "Our driver was SIM certified, so clearly your driver was at fault. Pay up"

Still a lot of people that would need to be convinced, but this is at least somewhat in the realm of reality

Stop filling cars with stupid user interfaces for electronic systems that require close visual attention to use! Touch screens are stupid in cars - there's no tactile feedback so you HAVE TO USE YOUR EYES! I think GM are worse than Ford in this respect but they're all at it, even top-end marques like BMW and Mercedes.

I want physical switches with positive tactile feedback whose function is clear and doesn't keep changing in different "modes" just because you're too cheap to provide a separate switch for different things. Cars of the 1960s with great big toggle switches on wooden dashboards were easier to drive than this.

BMW has steadfastly refused to include touch screens, exactly because they require you to take your attention off the road to use. BMW uses a rotating joystick controller located near the shifter, and the UI is designed so that you can glance to and from quickly with little need to maintain context. They also insist on placing the screen very high in the dash to minimize the distance your eyes have to travel when glancing at the screen and maximize your peripheral vision while you are looking.

They also have a full cockpit simulator where they do extensive driver attention studies. Say what you will about the iDrive system, but it gets top marks for minimizing driver distraction.

European car makers for years resisted putting basic stuff like cup holders in because they didn't think you'd want to do anything but drive. Then some of them experienced north american traffic.

The european mindset about cars has been much more about paying attention to the fucking road than trying to watch a DVD while you sit in a traffic jam for an hour, and that has given then a bit of a leg up on making sure everything you need to be on the road is well thought out.

European car makers for years resisted putting basic stuff like cup holders in because they didn't think you'd want to do anything but drive. Then some of them experienced north american traffic.

Yes, it's particularly inexplicable that the closest thing that the W126 mercedes (S-class!) have no cup holders, just some of those little circles on the flimsy glove box lid that you could maybe put teacups on... but it's got three ashtrays. Now look, if you're thinking I might want to smoke, why not think I might like to drink, too?

Just recently my Lexus rental broke down so they stuck me in an S60 - The Volvo system was MILES above anything else I had driven from a minimal distraction and easy to use while driving standpoint. It had the option to turn off the display automatically when idle, a pushable scroll wheel on the steering wheel, and full telephone and climate control buttons. The NAV screen was also close to the top of the dash and the A2DP/Bluetooth was awesome. Too bad the rest of the car was complete suckage and poorly eq

In the Z4 I rented, I couldn't figure out how to turn the damn screen of... you should be able to turn off the backligfht at night!!

It can be turned off (or dimmed) in my 2007 BMW under Settings | Display, if memory serves. (Settings is accessed by pressing the dial down, rather than "bumping" it like all the other menus.) I mapped that function to one of the steering wheel controls for the precise reason you gave, so with a press of the button it turns on/off at night.

BMW has steadfastly refused to include touch screens, exactly because they require you to take your attention off the road to use. BMW uses a rotating joystick controller located near the shifter, and the UI is designed so that you can glance to and from quickly with little need to maintain context. They also insist on placing the screen very high in the dash to minimize the distance your eyes have to travel when glancing at the screen and maximize your peripheral vision while you are looking.

They also have a full cockpit simulator where they do extensive driver attention studies. Say what you will about the iDrive system, but it gets top marks for minimizing driver distraction.

My Honda beats anything BMW has--it has only four controls:

- Volume Knob (left for less noise, right for more noise)- Seek (doesn't matter if you push up or down as long as you always press the same one)- Fan (left for less fan, right for more fan)- Temp (left for less hot, right for more hot)

Done.

No "holding context" in your mind like someone else mentioned about iDrive. No screen in your face. etc. It's very simple and frankly when you are driving a car that's how it should be... I cannot fathom how we

Cars of the 1960s with great big toggle switches on wooden dashboards were easier to drive than this.

MyFord Touch was such a hit that Ford chose not to include it standard on their best selling product: the F-series of trucks.Why? Because it was a glitchy mess and they could not afford to jeapordize sales of the best selling truck in America.

For 2013, they're including MyFord Touch standard on some of the premium trim packages,but it's a modified layout with redundant buttons and knobs for climate and radio/cd control.The fact that Ford is unwilling to go full retard on their line of trucks makes me wonder

You pretty much nailed why they are pushing this, but they're not going to listen. That's why this simulator exists. It's to fix the problem that was created by solving the problem of "make this car cheaper."

The higher end cars have more features, and therefore even more switches. That's why iDrive came before MyFordTouch. It's also a crappier experience (more steps to do the same thing), but they're not going to back to more buttons, because that would ruin margins.

Tesla are going to stick a 17 inch (!) tablet in the middle of their Model S. This is the most reckless sounding idea I've ever heard of. I assume Tesla haven't completely lost their minds and will put limits on what the tablet can do while the vehicle is in motion. But some functionality will have to remain - satnav, call handling, hands free, weather, radio, music etc. Packing so many distractions behind in a flat glass interface that can only be operated by looking directly at it is a recipe for disaster

Cellphone Jammer enabled al any speed above 10 mph. washer fluid squirts in the eyes when they look down for more than 3 seconds. brakes jam on and airbag deploys at 5X normal force when they change lanes without looking and a motorcycle is detected next to the car.

Electrical jolt from the steering wheel and seat voltage increases with speed and proximity to the car in front of them. Tailgaiting gets you 160,000 volts at 400HZ AC.

Lastly built in taint puncher built into the seat what is triggered every

I hate talking/texting and driving as much as the next guy, but I want my internet radio on my phone while I drive. I don't need to touch/look at it for that, and a cell jammer would stop that from being possible. Maybe if they can block the calls without blocking the 3G...hell, I'd have it on all the time with me, so I can use data but no annoying calls.

I recently figured out that a true self-driving car option(not the car, just the option) should be worth it at around $25k for the 'average' driver that commutes 1 hour a day, for 15k miles/year, that values not having to drive at $10/hour, and using an autodrive system that eliminates 90% of accidents.

Because the AARP and other groups whine like big babies when anyone tries to make drivers licenses harder to get and keep. Almost ALL people drive as if they are without punishment. I'm in MY car you cant get to me. My car, I get to run that red light... MY CAR I GET TO DRIVE FAST AND RISK YOUR LIFE YAAAAAGGGH!

And what nut thinks that you don't learn from negative reinforcement? Please go touch a hot stove and burn your hand, by your example children will love burning their hands because it enc

...their baseline will be someone that knows they're being tested in a distracted driving simulator. They sure as hell won't be texting while putting on makeup, eating a cheeseburger, reading the paper and watching tv like they normall do.

If you RTFA you would know that the participants have no idea they are in a motion simulator, and only know that they are testing a car in a dome-shaped room with a car in it. They don't get to see the crazy robot legs, as they enter from a closed-off jetway.

They still know they're testing a car though, why would they try and bring a cheeseburger with them or start trying to text. Demonstrating how stupid those things are is much about finding someone who belligerently believes they can, asking them to prove it, and watching them fail.

I have failed many times at eating and driving - every time it's because I give priority to the driving. The results have meant that often I have to change, clean my car, and often buy more food and try again, or finish eating when I get to my destination. I have on more then one ocasion stuck myself with the straw or almost ate a napkin instead of a fry.

If you RTFA you would know that the participants have no idea they are in a motion simulator, and only know that they are testing a car in a dome-shaped room with a car in it. They don't get to see the crazy robot legs, as they enter from a closed-off jetway.

If you had any idea as to how peoples minds work, you'd realize that when they know they're being tested, they act in a dramatically different manner, which renders any testing results worthless. If you don't have a clean baseline, anything else you derive is meaningless.

Because that's what they'll be instructed to do. The idea of this isn't to try and ferret out bad drivers, it is to see what can be done to make cars safer for bad drivers. Bad drivers are a fact of life, we use technology to try and help.

So Ford will do tests like "Please eat lunch while you do this simulation," or "We'll be sending you text messages to read and respond to." I suppose you could refuse to do as they ask but then they'll thank you for your time and get someone else.

You have a gross misunderstanding of how peoples minds work. When people know something is happening, they behave differently. As a result, they have no observable baseline, since the whole thing smells of Schroedingers Cat. The driver is both distracted and not distracted. If you watch and the subject knows you're watching, you have no idea what the state would be if you weren't.

Do you really think the subjects will pick their nose and eat it, scratch that funny thing under their ass cheek, or any of t

And I think they understand it about as well as you do. I guess my experiences over several decades running marketing for a fortune 50 company might leave me a little shy in experience regarding human behavior.

The core problem with these sorts of studies is that when a person knows they're being tested, they behave differently. Since you cannot establish a reasonable baseline, you cannot effectively measure benefits or changes.

A popular study done a few years ago illustrates this quite well. A group of p

To be a 'Darwinian statistic', wouldn't you have to somehow contribute to your own death in a stupid way. Is the author acknowledging that he is stupid enough that he would die if other people weren't constantly looking out for him?

With 30-thousand some traffic fatalities a year, it would be well worth it.

I mean, there are like 20-30 some common scenarios that kids could be faced with in the simulator. Experiences they could have without being actual near misses. Or hits, like the unfortunates who don't make it, or are maimed. You get your driver's test after you've completed all the scenarios and have done actual driving time.

Experienced drivers are better because of their experience and near misses over the years.

Here's the National Advanced Driving Simulator, [uiowa.edu] which is in Iowa. This not only has a Stewart platform, the Stewart Platform is mounted on an X-Y table about 60 feet square. Toyota has an even bigger one with over 100 feet of linear travel.

The need for huge linear travel comes from the need to simulate the feeling of a hard stop. To some extent, deceleration can be simulated with tilt. But at the end of a stop, deceleration suddenly ceases without a change in attitude. You can't simulate that with a Stewart platform. If you want to test people's behavior during hard braking, you need a huge simulator.